For the record, the idea to add a note about TM to the n-ary document arose before the TM Task Force was formed. I agree with Lars and Fabien. Bernard ********************************************************************************** Bernard Vatant Senior Consultant Knowledge Engineering bernard.vatant@mondeca.com "Making Sense of Content" : http://www.mondeca.com "Everything is a Subject" : http://universimmedia.blogspot.com ********************************************************************************** > -----Message d'origine----- > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Lars Marius Garshol > Envoye : mardi 7 decembre 2004 10:53 > A : public-swbp-wg@w3.org > Objet : Re: [OEP] n-ary relations and topic maps > > > > > * Christopher Welty > | > | I think I agree with the point Lars is making, which is, I think, > | that the relationship between n-ary relations in topic maps and > | "workarounds" for RDF probably doesn't belong in the n-ary relations > | note. > > I was thinking this as I wrote, although I didn't explicitly write it, > so I do agree with you. > > | So I don't think there is a need for an appendix in the n-ary > | relations note for topic maps, because that opens the door to > | arbitrarily extending the note for every other format. If there is > | a need to describe the relationship between the workaround in the > | n-ary note and topic maps, then I think it should be in a note about > | topic maps and their relationship to RDF. > > Yes. > > -- > Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > > GSM: +47 98 21 55 50 <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no > > >Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 11:04:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:03 UTC